So, why hasn’t Michael Yon’s report on the al Qaeda massacre of women and children in Baqubah been picked up by the legacy media?
Well, if you can believe one reporter, the answer (that the mainstream press, too, has an agenda to push and protect, and certain stories, if given too much play, will weaken the master narrative) will come as little surprise to most readers here — just as it will come as little surprise when the admission itself is subsequently ridiculed and dismissed by many mainstream media apologists as the unattributed ramblings of some hack right-wing malcontent.
Still, it’s worth noting nevertheless:
Yon’s story doesn’t get attention because it is humiliating.
It is humiliating because it is obvious that we media – and our allies in the state department, the legal trade, the NGOs, the Democratic Party, the UN, etc., – can’t do squat about such determined use of force.
Our words, images, arguments and skills can’t stop the killing. Only the rough soldiers and their guns can solve the problem, and we won’t admit that fact because the admission would weaken our influence and our claim to social status.
So we pretend Yon’s massacre – and the North Korean killing fields, the Arab treatment of women, the Arab hatred of Israel, etc. – doesn’t exist, and instead focus our emotions and attention on the somewhat-bad domestic things that we can ‘fix’ with our DC-based allies. Things such as Abu Ghraib, wiretapping, etc. When we ‘fix’ them, then we get status, applause, power, new jobs, ego, etc.
Please don’t be surprised. We media are an interest group not much different from the automakers, the unions, and the farmers.
Of course, increased pressure from blogs and conservative radio could force the mainstream press to cover the story, else the failure to do some becomes too conspicuous to ignore — at which point that coverage will be cited by the usual suspects as proof that those making sweeping statements about media master narratives and agendas are conspiratorial crackpots (though, as I’ve been careful to note, oftentimes mere confirmation bias, rather than some carefully orchestrated grand conspiracy, is responsible for advocacy journalism, given that it leaves reporters peculiarly susceptible to propaganda).
Such post hoc defenses are self serving, sure. But that’s how the game is played — and how it will continue to be played until the myth of a dispassionate mainstream press is finally (and thankfully) exposed as a convenient fiction that has provided the fourth estate with the cultural cover necessary to act as advocates without first having to announce themselves as such.
Or, to put it more bluntly, the cultural presumption that the press is interested in objectivity and reporting facts has allowed the media to operate as propagandists for certain of its pet ideological causes — the only caveat being that they do enough straight reporting to make the charge of institutional bias difficult to “prove” in the aggregate.
Much to the detriment of the public — who “progressives” seem to believe should receive unadorned information on a fairly strict need to know basis.
****
update: Ten Fingers Six Strings emails:
Back in July of 2005, you linked to a post where I transcribed an article by Vietnam War Correspondent, Robert Elegant, called, “How to Lose a War: Reflections of a Foreign Correspondent – by Robert Elegant – Part 1.” It is an incredibly long article and I only got around to transcribing a third of it (which you linked to), but it is a scathing indictment by one of journalism’s own who saw the way the media was covering the Vietnam War to fit their particular narrative at the time. It is ripe with almost identical narrative themes the current day media have created about Iraq and they are cynically and nefariously succeeding to sway public opinion exactly as they did 30-40 years ago.
The more things change…
I think we do need to force them to report on this. Meanwhile, Michael ought to spell out why he believes this is al-Qaeda, to counter the meme that the people who know better than the forces on the ground keep promoting, which is that the expression al-Qaeda is used indiscriminately to indicate any enemy combatants.
But it’s very twisted that he’s ignored because the media find his reporting “humiliating,” given that they seem not very humiliated about having to retract the bullshit they swallow. The story is appalling, sickening, revolting. If your first concern is humiliation (and I’m looking at you, Gleen), you are morally bankrupt.
But Dan, why would retractions be humiliating?
As they said back in the 1970s, “Mistakes were made.”
When was the last time that anyone actually lost their job because “mistakes were made”? Compare the number of jobs lost to the number of prominent retractions made in the past four years. I’d venture the latter far outweigh the former.
Besides, whatchagonna do? Start your own news media? At the end of the day, with the exception of a handful of Yons and Bays, the MSM knows that the vast majority of news is handled by them, which then feeds into the consciousness of the vast majority of news-consumers.
For all that the blogosphere exists, and is read, far more Mr. and Mrs. America (and Mr. and Mrs. Europe, Japan, rest-of-world) depend on CNN, AP, the NY Times to know what’s going on.
It is also likely to be part of a larger pattern of behavior on the Left.
That is, I think a smilar dynamic is (partially) at work among the human rights groups who spend more time focused on whether playing Christina Aguilera records is “torture” — i.e., behavior that makes Andrew Sullivan wet himself — than they do complaining about the dysfunctional UNHRC or the regimes it excuses, like Iran.
It is a joke. Specifically, it is the joke about the drunk who loses his keys in the dark, but is looking for them under the streetlamp because the light is better there.
Similarly, “professional” journalism is stocked largely by people who see it as a vehicle to “make the world a better place.” But when it comes to trying to change the behavior of a group like Al-Qaeda, journalists are confronted with the reality that the pen is not mightier than the sword; hence, the humiliation. To have the the import and status they seek, journalists must wield their pens against those who actually care what is written about them. They would rather critique the candle than curse the darkness.
What Karl said.
Adn I’ll be over here under the lamp.
If I thought you infidels were listening I would never point out that in order to survivve this war you must realize what your media is, rather than wishing it was what it claims to be.
Simply put, to win this war we (the psychotic murderers) must seek the status quo. To win this war you must confront your media, face what it is and face what it has chosen to honor and serve. Until you do that we psychotic killers will continue to enjoy success far beyond our means, training and intelligence. Enjoy the media you have built infidels.
We often hear reports of mass graves. They’ve become almost repetitive and not news. What we don’t hear are the things the press can’t fix, like how many schools have been painted since we invaded.
“They would rather critique the candle than curse the darkness.”
Brilliant, Karl.
Let’s not ignore the business side of Mass Media. In addition to the those who seek to change the world into the squishy, liberal/progressive ideal that they were promised back in college, the mighty editors and producers need to survive by printing their perception of not only what’s readable, but also what sizzles.
Increasingly the MSM is becoming like local news writ large. Part of the problem is bad news sells (at least in their perception) better than good news. If you are reporting a war with the 12 to 1 ration of reporters who, arguably, are opposed to its concept then you get to kill two birds with one article. The more negatively salacious the story, the better for business and, by the way, better for the benefit of the world at large.
Once confronted with differing events after a years of drum beating, the business people can say a massacre in a small town in Iraq won’t sell papers or pimp advertisers. Thus the embarrassment is avoided and the cash continues to flow. The problem, of course is the public, increasingly,is not buying it, as represented by newspaper subscription shrinkage and network news shows declining ratings.
Thus while they continue to serve the “greater good” their business model continues to let them down financially. the damage, however continues.
That NBC piece on the body armor is just infuriating.
Aren’t you people the same ones bitching about how the EmmEssEmm won’t cover the “good news” from Iraq? I suppose that if they were covering this massacre you’d all be complaining about that.
“THE PAINTED SCHOOLS, WHY WON’T THEY FOCUS ON THE PAINTED SCHOOLS”
Gee, AJB. Pardon us for wanting the EmmEssEmm to cover bad news that actually makes our enemies look bad. You know, so that we can say that these are just the sorts of asshole barbarians we want to kill. In bunches.
No, no, you’re right. Everything that could possibly be said about insane, medieval loving jihadists has already been said so let’s concentrate on American casualties and Senate leaders declarations that “we’ve already lost and the surge as failed.”
We’ll issue a formal apology on Earth Day…
You do truly live in a world of your own invention. Unfortunately for you, it seems full of you whining and everyone else thinking you’re a bunch of weirdos. Oh well.
DAVID HAS SPOKEN, AND SO IT SHALL BE, FOR HE IS THE TRUE ARBITER OF THE WILL OF “EVERYONE ELSE.”
You do truly live in a world of your own invention. Unfortunately for you, it seems full of you whining and everyone else thinking you’re a bunch of weirdos. Oh well.
You, like all of your brethren on the left, add such intelligence of the discourse of the day.
Why are we concerned that the MSM cover atrocities that actually occur rather than the ones that don’t? Because we’ve got this sneaking suspicion that it has something to do with “the way things are.” Naive I know, but feel free to go fuck yourselves.
Why david, you’re showing your slip! Apparently we missed that election that elevated you to HE WHO DETERMINES THE SHAPE OF THE WORLD AND SPEAKS FOR ALL WITHIN!!!
Congrats on that! Does it come with a window view office and per diem? And … are you able to do your entire job using nothing but generalised attack language without a shred of topical response?
Kewl!
David, though I love him passionately and note that he has earned his weekly stipend, does not matter. The media matters, and encouraging the media into reporting on itself matters. If you are to succeed you must begin with journalists who fancy themselves as being of your stripe. Until you do you will receive more of this sort of journalism in ever bigger shovel fulls. Every journalist and his brother by now knows of this massacre. Likewise every journalist and his brother realizes that a news embargo is upon it. But few of them, even those at the more conservative outlets report on the embargo or on the story. It is because their loyalty to their caste (and their own pocketbooks) trumps their loyalty to truth, their loyalty fellow man, their loyalty to their civilization or even their own human decency If you are to succeed you must change that. To change that you must start with the journalists who claim they are different from the rest. You must remind them that access is not everything. It is a lesson they should have long since learned.
Ferchrissakes, david, you can’t even assemble a proper insult. Sod off, Swampy!
And the most important aspect of the error/retraction cycle: chances are, the retraction/correction will not be printed on Page One.
shine, that was a fairly weak effort. And all AJB could do is try to pick the crumbs of that effort off the floor.
How about you tell us why such stories should be ignored, and false ones propogated. Or reports should breathlessly report that they are hiding under their beds in a Green Zone hotel while people like Yon, with near no resources can actually go out to a site and look. Talk to people. You know, all that reportery stuff they should be teaching at J school…
It’s not difficult to see how Yon’s story of six bodies in a Bouquba grave – no matter how repulsive – wouldn’t set the news-gathering world on fire. As others pointed out above, “Bless the Beasts and the Children” is a powerful read but it hardly distinguishes itself from daily reports of slaughter in an around Baghdad.
Also, as Yon notes, he was the only reporter on the scene. If he had worked for, say, the NY Times, chances are it would have appeared in that publication and all the others that follow the Times’ lead. And, yes, everybody looks to the Times for international stories.
But Yon doesn’t work for a big. So unless he is breaking big news (and six bodies in a Boquoba grave is not big news) then a piece like his is little more than a feature story (a macabre color piece) that will not grab much attention unless its written by a John Burns or a Dexter Filkins and picked around the county.
Sure it’s not fair. Especially given Yon’s wonderful writing abilities.
But it’s no conspiracy either.
The body count, per the update, is now up to 10-14. But that’s not the point, tragic as it is: the point is, Yon’s story and provides a DIRECT COUNTER to the FAKE DECAPITATION stories the MSM thought WERE newsworthy when the message was different.
And Yon also notes that there are plenty of reporters close by who simply have chosen not to go out to the site, and so are under no mandate to report on the incident.
But this is a story about the willingness of al Qaeda to murder women and children — Iraqi women and children — which doesn’t fit in with the motives of terrorists frequently touted by the mainstream press.
So don’t kid yourself, Scot. The fact is, this story is being ignored not because its just another macabre story (my newspaper is daily filled with those, so the idea that such stories are routinely ignored is suspect), but rather because it reveals our enemies for what they are, and allows for no “root causes” nonsense.
It’s not difficult to see how Yon’s story of six bodies in a Bouquba grave – no matter how repulsive – wouldn’t set the news-gathering world on fire. As others pointed out above, “Bless the Beasts and the Children” is a powerful read but it hardly distinguishes itself from daily reports of slaughter in an around Baghdad.
Also, as Yon notes, he was the only reporter on the scene. If he had worked for, say, the NY Times, chances are it would have appeared in that publication and all the others that follow the Times’ lead. And, yes, everybody looks to the Times for international stories.
But Yon doesn’t work for a big. So unless he is breaking big news (and six bodies in a Boquoba grave is not big news) then a piece like his is little more than a feature story (a macabre color piece) that will not grab much attention unless its written by a John Burns or a Dexter Filkins and picked around the county.
Sure it’s not fair. Especially given Yon’s wonderful writing abilities.
But it’s no conspiracy either. It’s just market forces at work.
Scot, your claim is unconvincing given the pattern long observed with respect to MSM coverage of iraq.
Another one to file under the category of “Noble But Futile Efforts”.
A response from the AP? Not holding my breath.
Here’s what Scot wrote:
Here’s what Yon actually wrote:
Michael Gordon has been embedded in Baqubah for the NYTimes and — according to Yon — his reports have been accurate. Did Gordon punt on this story? Did the NYTimes decide not to print something he wrote about it? I don’t know, and neither does Scot. But I do know that it is fantastically disingenuous to suggest that MSM reporters could not report on it, as Scot does.
Karl,
Assuming Gordon was even aware of Yon’s story, it’s disingenuous to suggest that Gordon abandon his own beat on the Baqubah battlefield to confirm Yon’s story of six bodies when the whole bloody region is brimming with casualties. And it’s fantastically disingenous (your words) to suggest that he did so as part of a media conspiracy to cover up the already well-known fact that jihadists commit atrocities.
Scot
One can lead infidels to water but one cannot make them think. Of course the media is purposely ignoring the slaughter. It does not fit our purposes. You should exepct that. They have chosen thier side. ( And yes one can debate exactly what side that is, but one cannot debate who it benefits can one?).
Your problem is that the outlets that you believe you control, that you believe cater to you won’t cover this slaughter either. Nor will they cover the media’s reticence to cover such things. Nor will they cover the media’s use of my bretheren as their stringers. Nor will they cover the media’s sloppy and out right false reporting, or even tolerate the sight of those who do. They have closed ranks with the rest. Meanwhile you happily chrip MSM this and MSM that on these boards when you should be all over the representatives of the MSM (at conservative publications and networks) who take your emails and poitely give you the brush off every day.
“And it’s fantastically disingenous (your words) to suggest that he did so as part of a media conspiracy to cover up the already well-known fact that jihadists commit atrocities.”
Well, Scot, there have been and will be American casualties in the fight, which hasn’t stopped the MSM from trumpeting virtually each and everyone like a singer in a Wagnerian opera proclaiming the eternal lament.
But hey, you’re right. Jihadist atrocities? Old hat, yesterday’s news. Why report on that when there are American deaths to
build headlines withreport.Sorry we took up your time.
Read it and weep infidels. A number of you, and a number of your representatvies in the media (at the NRO, at the Weekly Standard and on Fox) have bitterly complained that your infidel cowboy president has fought this war only to lose. I certainly will not argue that. But you yourselves and your media representatvies have fought the media war with an eye towards losing as well. You have allowed the media and their enablers, like my good and nobles sservant Scott, to pretend that they are infallibale and good while Americans, American soldiers, American politicians and you as well are evil incarnate. You have allowed them to tell outright falsehoods. You have allowed them to present psychotic killers and psychopathic despots as good and noble men. And you have done it simply because you could not scrape together the fortitude to ask your own media people to look at what the left’s media people were saying and tell you if it was true.
Your sin is of course of omission instead of commission. When our air fuel bombs become more successful that will not matter so much will it?
See, the funny thing is, the press only mentions the atrocities the jihadis commit in passing. They’ll give it a couple of sentences, then drop it.
But the merest accusation against US soldiers, and it’s front-page material for months. Even if it’s poorly sourced. And if it’s real, they barely mention that the US military itself is prosecuting the accused.
Hell, the press went berserk over Abu Graib, and even made “there was a cover-up” noises despite the investigation having been announced in a press conference shortly after it began, months before the feeding frenzy began!
The Boston Globe covered a Boston politician accusing US troops of crimes using pics from a porn site as evidence, and didn’t bother to search for the source of the photos. Newsweek ran with the “flushing the Koran” story despite it obviously being crap. The AP ran the “20 beheaded bodies” story this week despite no corroboration and sources that were not in any position to know.
Yet how much coverage has been devoted to the jihadi torture chambers the troops have found? How much analysis has there been of how the jihadis violate the laws of war, and what that means for their legal status?
The press goes out of its way to ignore the nature of our enemy. Why?!
Because they have invested their reputations and influence in your defeat, infidels. Your defeat makes them strong, at least for the short term.
But frankly, you are past the time to wonder why and quickly passing the time when asking other members of the media to exercise a little responsibility will make a difference. Get to it. Demand that your media perform its function. Demand that it tell you what the AP and Rueters are doing and why they are doing it.
“Any one of the reporters currently in Baqubah could still go to these coordinates and follow his or her nose and find the gravesites.””
Is Baqubah the kind of place that a western reporter can just walk around, or do they need military protection?
I’m not certain, the AP and Rueters do not need protection. But they work for me…
I could probably get you in as well, Shine. Send me a resume.
[…] The Media Non-Blitz: a reporter explains why the mainstream press gives scant coverage to certain st… […]
An infidel with a survival instinct might ask that someone look into the AP’s use of stringers, or into the way that the MSM covers Iraq as compared to the way Michael Yon covers Iraq. An infdel without a survival instinct might be pleased to allow things to continue as they have…
Maybe so Rob. Maybe the press goes out of its way to appear dispassionate in regards to jihadist atrocities. But to say these atrocities aren’t reported is simply inaccurate. Damn near every day comes news of a hideoous car bombing, suicide bomb, mass shooting, murder or even torture. So often that correspondants, their media organizations and their audiences become jaded and war-weary (although you could make the case that audiences were never really into this war to begin with as American Idol trumped the War from Day 1).
And when that bias creeps in, the war-weariness bias, these stories slip further and further down the news list. And on all sides. The the best example of this bias is Fox News, which barely covers Iraq anymore. Is that because they want us to lose or have they just moved on? Or are they trying to divert attention? Who knows. But are their ommissions any more glaring than the rest of the so-called MSM?
Actually, Scott, I demanded that those matters only be reported in a way that makes America look criminal. And to this point I have been greatly pleased. Thus we are called insurgents not terrorists. No, no the media should not be modest. I am quite thrilled with them.
Oh, a couple of years back Roger L. Simon and the miserable Ledeen attempted to publicize Saddam’s atrocities. Remember the wall to coverage it received? Ha, ha, ha, ha.. I’m sorry. Sometimes I make myself laugh. You might want to ask them about the objectivity of the media.
Some in Iraq are insurgents. Others are terrorists. Distinguishing between the two actually makes a difference. Especially when the U.S. enters into negotiations with the former (remember: we don’t negotiate with terrorists) and comes out with a small group of Sunni insurgents to help fight against Baquba’s jihadists.
Ledeen and Simon were going to set the record straight on Saddam’s torture chambers? Boy, that’s like calling on Chomsky and Pilger to weigh in on Fort Benning.
That’s so funny. Chomsky and Pilger. What was also funny was how CNN never felt they needed to report what was actually happening in Saddam’s Iraq. But the AP more than has the Fort Benning story covered.
Actually we’re all insurgents and freedom fighters now, Scott. And believe you me I appreciate it, and I appreciate you.
Oh, and for the record, I agree with you, Scott, Saddam’s torture chambers…no such thing, especially if Ledeen and Simon say so. The really sad thing for you infidels is this. Your side of the media divide has pretty much ceded the field to Scott and company. Enjoy.
Eason Jordan admitted that they did not run stories so they could maintain access. Given a choice between repprting Abu Ghraib and the recent AQ slaughter, we know which story the media will always choose.
scot – other than being a contrarian, do you have a point?
[…] media will trust anyone who hews to their narratives and subscribes to their banalities, just so they don’t themselves have to be subject to the same standards that they would like […]
Why yes JD. I was musing on why Michael Yon’s story didn’t get picked up by the major media outlets (see above). Then I got haunted by the Ghost of Abu Mussab al Zarqawi.
Happyfeet: Not THAT Fort Benning story …. oh, nevermind.
And yet, you find yourself irresistably attracted to us. What happened, did Jane kick you out again?
scot – So, in the course of your musing, maybe you could explain to us why the media choices always seem to favor the Dems, are contrary to Republican positions, minimize the atrocities of our enemies, or maximize the pseudo-scandals associated with the military. It could be a coinicdence, or it could be worth 15 points in a presidential election.
JD — I’m not an expert on these things. But I have worked for three newspapers, in Asia and the U.S., for the last 16 years. One of those papers was liberal leaning, the other moderate conservative and the last one hard right, editorial-wise. I can tell you that bias does exist, but outside of editorial page meetings most of it is not intentional or organized around some grand operating principle. Different editors push their views, but I have never experienced a newspaper moment where everybody agrees to hit one political party or the other. In fact the editors on each paper I worked for went out of their way to observe the line between editorializing and reporting, between opinion and reportage.
That said, I was just trying to work through the example of Michael Yon, who I quite like, and express and alternative to the MSM conspiracy theory. As for your other questions, I don’t really know the answers. But I can tell you that President Bush did have the balance of the media on his side in the run up to the war and somehow managed to lose it, not so much because of any counter narrative, but mostly because of the way the war has turned out up to this point. That’s the way I see it anyway.
Cheers,
Scot
Then you must recall a different “run-up” to the war. I seem to recall estimates of 100,000+ US dead, the harsh Afghan winter, how the military was bogged down on the way to Baghdad, how Bush was manipulating intelligence, those 16 words in the SOTU, and whether or not he said that Saddam posed an imminent threat (he did not). Rewriting history does not make it so.
As far as bias goes, worldview and collective groupthink are common. Goldberg’s book clearly showed how narratives can be formed and disseminated due to an ideology of accepted truths. I think many of us on the right would simply prefer that the media drop the juvenile “unbiased” claims, and simply acknowledge that they enter into the process with their own ideology, which just so happens to be 80% + Democrat.
The coverage of Haditha, the willie pete coverage, the coverage of the recent beheadings, the coverage of Berg beheading, the sixteen words, the Joe Wilson coverage, the coverage of the burned Sunis, the coverage of the body armor, the coverage of the armored up humvees, the Abu Grahib coverage, the use of terrorist strongers, the Rueters photographs, the coverage of the conflict in Lebanon, Mike Wallace’s interview with the president of Iran, Diane Sawyer’s interview with Assad, Dan Rather’s interview of Saddam before the war, the New York Times sniper photos, the CNN sniper videos, the over stretched supply lines at the beginning of the war, the Peter Arnett interview during the invasion, the various over wrought stories in support of american soldiers who deserted their posts rather than go to Iraq, the suggestions from the press to the American soldiers questioning Donald Rumslfeld about vehicle armor, Eason Jordan. CNN’s admission that they killed bad news about Saddam in return for access. And on and on and on… The American press has been instrumental to me from the beginning. And will be for years to come. I think. And honestly flashing your credentials as a reporter should be two strikes against you in the reliability department. Lucky for me it isn’t…yet.
I have never argued that the “media” gets together to plan grand conspiracies, just that their confirmation bias and their desire to frame stories in ways that hew to their worldview — which is decidedly left-progressive — leads inexorably to biased coverage in the aggregate.
I stand by that assessment.
And more and more, the press, in my estimation, has given up even the appearance of dispassionate reporting in favor of a more transparent attempt to direct the cultural conversation and proscribe the narratives that provide its framing.
Oh and let us not forget the classic moment when the BBC claimed American forces were nowhere near the Baghdad Airport…even as American tanks rolled by in the back ground. And while I’m at it I should add the repeated claims by the press (Eason Jordan and others) that American soldiers intentionally target journalists. And the American solider hostage who turned out to be a doll remember that? And have you noticed how senstive the press is to American armed forces propaganda but how completely clueless they are about jihadi propaganda? The BBC’s own findings that they are biased. Yes, yes, yes…all unintentional. Completely accidental. Honestly reporters say things with a straight face that Saddam and Yassar and I would never have dared attempt. You must get classes on that in journalism school.
And of course before all that there was tailhook, and the Peter Arnett story about american soldies using chemical weapons in the first gulf war. Intentional or not infidels, and on this I disagree with your infidel host, I think there is an intent in most news rtooms to preserve their market share and their influence and damn the consequences and the truth. There is very little arguing with the results is there? And did I mention MIchael Moore and his kite flying Irai children. the networks produced dozens of documentaries savaging that didn’t they? Oh and Sandy Berger hasn’t had a moments peace for the press has he?
The good professor has solved this one for us in the comments to this thread:
http://red-state.blogspot.com/2007/07/right-wing-blog-behind-rsi-times.html
it turns out Michael Yon is a bit too homoerotic, apparently. I knew it had something to do with sex, it always does.
NPR hasn’t had an ombudsman since June of ’06 – well before the elections. I have listened to them and it’s my sense that they tilt to the left.
B Moe – I spent about an hour reading Ric’s drivel. After being called racist, sexist, and homophobic, it is hard to take him seriously. His 4th of July post was a doozie, followed by a sole comment/rant that could not be parodied any better than reality.
JD: I do recall a different run-up to the war. Maybe I am biased. Maybe you are. But we agree on one thing. The media should drop its unbiased claim.
Jeff: Hey, I haven’t posted here for a while but I still read your blog regularly enough to know where you’re coming from. My original contention here is that the omission of the Michael Yon does not, in itself, add up to media bias.
Ghost: I don’t appreciate the anonymous dig. When your done ghosting, let me know.
Apologies.
… the Michael Yon story, in itself, …
But I appreciate the rampant dishonesty. Stay just the way you are, Scot. It makes my job easier.